Steve Clemons and Hilzoy both tackle Jamie Kirchick's 2003-vintage whine about the alleged decline of the anti-totalitarian left.
« More Huckamania | Main | The Office Illusion »
When Guest-Bloggers Attack
01 Sep 2007 08:34 am
Comments (18)
What I have learned from the mostly British whining about the decline of the 'anti-totalitarian left' is that whatever 'left' they are talking about is somehow less willing than they are to hastily unleash the dogs of war upon societies already suffering under tyrants and then watching as chaos is frequently unleashed upon the already-suffering populations.
I do recall many liberals and leftists trying to stop Reagan's close allies from carrying out their U.S. supplied and partly directed genocide against the Mayan Indians of Guatemala.
Yet even though actual genocide was being carried out by Reagan's close friends, I recall no liberals or leftists recommending that some other nation bomb and destroy all the major cities of Guatemala and its infrastructure in order to stop its murderous armies.
I also recall that the humanitarian agencies actually working on the ground in Somalia begged the U.S. not to intervene militarily, that in no way would it help the delivery of aid and it would make the then chaotic situation into more hellish chaos, but presumably they were simply too unsophisticated and pro-totalitarian.
Wow...Hilzoy's smackdown is epic. I know that Kirchick bashing is a hobby of yours Matt, but Hilzoy has raised the bar. It's going to take something special to convince me to recategorize Kirchick from "Hilzoy's bitch" back to "Yglesias' bitch".
Yes, I thought the responses were considerably higher in tone than the "Stop fucking making shit up in that fucking coy voice you fucking petit-fascist!" that I would want to say.
I think it's a mistake to act as though Kirchick's fantasy world imaginings deserve a place at the grown-ups' table. It's a characteristically liberal flaw to treat his theatrics as an argument in need of a well-substantiated rebuttal. (I've done it on my blog too).
But this is starting to remind me of the "let's teach both sides" approach to teaching astrology or alchemy or creationism in public schools.
There is no debate here.
There's Kirchick smearing his opponents by making shit up and failing to support it with anything approaching evidence. How much more needs to be said?
OK, I take it back on reading all of hilzoy's post. That was a pretty epic evisceration. And it did get to the heart of the matter: "why, Jamie, do you throw your feces around so often? Do you think that facts and reality should have any bearing on what people write?"
To reinforce the other comments, everyone reading this thread, and perhaps feeling too lazy on a Saturday morning to read Hilzoy's somewhat-long-post--go read it now. It truly is a vicious, but completely fair and accurate, beatdown.
What I have learned from the mostly British whining about the decline of the 'anti-totalitarian left' is that whatever 'left' they are talking about is somehow less willing than they are to hastily unleash the dogs of war upon societies already suffering under tyrants and then watching as chaos is frequently unleashed upon the already-suffering populations.
And Kirchick is offering up half-baked Decentism at best. Fortunately, the righteous eviscerations of the Decents provide a nice foundation for responses, though 'oh, just fuck off' is equally valid.
Does this second-tier neocon jabroni actually think McGovern's problem was foreign policy realism?
I'll agree it's sad Bayard Rustin is not better remembered -- by both liberals AND conservatives, by the way -- but Kirchick in no place explains whence he derives the notion that Rustin knew what the f he's talking about w/r/t foreign policy.
Oooh, poor Jamie's crying now that his asshole is wider than the Grand Canyon, courtesy of hilzoy and clemons.
My own little personal fantasy in all of this is that, just as AS returns, djerejian fires back with a motherlode fisking of Jamie's recent talkingpoints-from-Marty. djerejian is particularly adept at snarky vitriol, particularly when the francais comes out it dribs and drabs. Yes...let's see the french come out .
Oh my God. "Moral clarity"? Jesus Christ. I thought only Buddhist monks set themselves on fire in public.
I would also note how important it was for the 'Bomb Them Now' left that they only felt accountable for what they wished to happen.
In other words, because they wished that an invasion and occupation of Iraq would improve the well-being of Iraqis, then their job was done, except for the considerable energies they spent insulting anyone who dissented from their fantasies.
The fact that reality did not follow their moralistic fantasies, even in ways which were not only predictable but screamingly predicted, was in their view irrelevant in judging the moral correctness of the policies they advocated.
The 'left' which they continually derided often made a happen of trying to think through the possible consequences of both acting and not acting, of the consequences of supporting some state leaders who wished to carry out a war versus opposing state leaders who desired war.
In firefighting, on occasion explosives can be used to create a firebreak to halt the spread of a fire. This does not mean that in every instance in which there is a fire one is morally justified in flinging dynamite about haphazardly.
And if my home ever catches on fire, please may none of the 'Bomb Them Now' left show up to liberate me, lest me and mine be blown up in the process.
The day I don't have to read anything by Kirchick during my daily blog crawl will be a happy day. His posts are like case studies in moving goalposts, ad hom's, non sequitar's, and opinions masquerading as fact.
And I too hope that Djerejian's silence thus far on the matter is because he's winding up to unload on Jamie's silliness.
"Once again, I've been more than lucky to persuade four of my favorite bloggers to fill in for me ... They don't agree on everything, especially foreign policy, which should make for some fun."
-Andrew Sullivan
There has to be some accountability for those who continue to give Kirchick a platform. Mr. Sullivan should be taken to task for allowing this person to write under The Atlantic's imprimatur. I would hope that while the editors encourage a lively debate, they would draw the line at what James Kirchick does to the level of discourse. It does not reflect well upon the organization as a whole.
Folks expecting Andrew Sullivan to scold Jamie Kirchick for dishonesty are likely to have a long wait. Sullivan is still proud of publishing excerpts from The Bell Curve, a completely dishonest piece of pseudoscientific crap that wouldn't have gotten any attention at all if it hadn't been excerpted in TNR.
(Now Steve Sailer will probably show up.)
In his latest missive Kirchick is reduced to suggesting "an example of what position American labor might take on the [Iraq] war" put forward by Gary Kent one of the principal signatories of the so-called Euston Manifesto.
I actually have had more fun watching Kirchik get pwned this week than I have in a long time. Then again, my other favorite past time is trolling the one or two right wing nut houses that allows comments. Because sometimes it's just fun being a jerk...
That said, here's my problem with Kirchik. "Young master Jamie" has been "reading [Sullivan's] blog since he was in high school..."!!! Since fucking high school?!?!
Frankly, when I was in high school, the closest thing I had to reading a blog was typing my papers on an Apple IIe. Tell me why I should give any credence to a jackass Mini-Me version of Marty Peretz again?
Reading Sullivan's blog in FUCKING HIGH SCHOOL?!?! That's too funny for words. LOOOOOL!
El Cid really nails it. What really distinguishes neoconservatives from others with foreign policy views is that they place a very low priority on thinking through the consequences of their actions. It's a very self-involved group, always thumping their chests and praising themselves for having grit, while never actually doing anything that requires grit. And they never make any effort at all, beyond citing best-case scenarios, at figuring out what the likely consequences of their latest military adventures might be.
But ideas have consequences.
Comments closed September 15, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I was wondering when Clemons, Hilzoy, and GD would go from respectful disagreement with Kirchick to "what the fuck are you talking about, you fucking hack."
Posted by Tim | September 1, 2007 9:31 AM